I do not want open primaries or caucuses.. they are a joke

[Peacetrain]

I caucus in Iowa.. and you can enroll and change your status at caucus.. and while that may seem like a bit of heaven in Johnson County.. it is a nightmare on the western borders when the republicans and right leaning independents come in to mess with the caucus results.

A person should have registered for the party by the week before the caucus and if they want to participate in that party caucus

the last minute finagling really burns me up.. because I know who is who..

If you are too sorry to get your backside registered be the week before caucus.. then you are SOL.. period

I also will work my heart out to close the caucus.. and have it as a primary.. with a caucus for people who want to party build.. a meeting..but the voting needs to be all day so that more people can participate.

Only 250 people had their votes count in our precinct..and that is ridiculous.. old people..young families.. college people taking night classes..people having to work at night..none could make it there.. and it is just not right

I love caucus for party building.. but it is not fair to limit who can participate.. and just because I love it does not mean it is the best thing for the most people..

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Absolutely agree. I hope the process is reformed moving forward.

[bigwillq]

2. I'm against caucuses but for open primaries (nt)

[redstatebluegirl]

8. Same thing happens, the Republicans come in droves to make sure the weakest

Democratic candidate wins so they win.

[bkkyosemite]

3. Every person has a right to vote for whoever they want without restrictions.

[Squinch]

27. In the general election.

[yallerdawg]

29. In the general election.

Political parties are Constitutionally protected entities that allow a guaranteed "freedom of association."

If we don't want undeclared "independent" whatever's to vote in our primary, that is our right.

Make a decision, take a stand, honor that commitment! Don't step on mine!

[obamanut2012]

38. 100% agree -- in the GE

[PAMod]

48. In th General Election.

If anyone wants to vote in our party's primary, they should have to join our party. As far as I know we've never turned anyone away from becoming a Democrat -

[still_one]

4. I agree. I want Democrats to determine their nominee, and the caucus excludes people who cannot be

physically there

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I'd prefer open primaries. Top two candidates face each other in November.

It would be far more democratic and allow the people to select the candidates rather than the party bosses.

[HooptieWagon]

6. Because purification and voter suppression are fabulous for building party membership?

If the Democratic Party wants closed primaries, then they better be prepared to pay for them. There's no reason for an independant to have their taxes pay for an election they can't vote in.

[msongs]

9. independents can vote for their preferred choice in the general election nt

[HooptieWagon]

12. Why should their taxes pay for a closed primary?

[obamanut2012]

39. My taxes pay for schools, and I have no kids

[HooptieWagon]

42. Our society benefits from an educated population.

Do you expect a level of education from store clerks, government employees, civil servants, and first responders? Then you benefit from public ally-funded education.

Your scenario would be having publicly funded education that only 29% were permitted to participate in.

[Squinch]

28. Or opt for a party when they register. Or make their own party.

[Peacetrain]

13. if you like a candidate who is running in a particular party...

Join the party.. its free!!!!!!!!! Right leaning independents have no buisness trying to pick the candidate of the Democratic Party.. Its a private party.. simple .. join..

[HooptieWagon]

15. Why wouldn't right-leaning Indrpendants vote for their candidate in the GOP primary?

I've seen no evidence of a significant number of RWs voting in Dem primaries, or Clinton would have a bigger lead.

[Peacetrain]

17. As I said.. In Johnson County.. doubt if they saw any of it

those of us who live in very red areas.. saw people who we knew to be righty indies.. come in and change party for the night.. you cannot stop them.. and it aggravating as hell..

[politicaljunkie41910]

26. Because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We had members of the GOP vote in the California primary for Bernie Sanders because by the time June 7 rolled around, Trump was the presumtive nominee and they wanted to screw with our election and California also had a late registration deadline. Contrary what Bernie always claimed, the GOP would have loved to had to run against a self-proclaimed socialist. My area is heavily populated by the GOP and they would have loved it.

[HooptieWagon]

37. No, that's false. You didn't have members of the GOP voting Dem.

Only Democrats and non-Party were permitted to vote in Dem Primary. Non-Party could request a Dem or Rep ballot. GOP would have had to change party registration several weeks earlier, when Trump wasn't such an obvious nominee. Also, switching parties to vote Dem means they can't vote GOP primaries in local and State races.

[obamanut2012]

40. Yup, I am not a Democrat

I am to the left of that. but I'm a registered Dem so I can vote for Dem noms.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I'm in Oregon, we vote by mail, it's a closed Primary but Bernie won it so what's your complaint

with us? The way I see it your State has crappy semi elections, always has and no one cares unless their candidate loses.

[MADem]

10. Neither do I. But I will go you one further--I don't like caucuses.

I realize I'm walking on your grass, so accept my apology in advance--but I gotta be honest, I don't like caucuses.

I like voting by mail (we don't have that yet, except for absentee ballots that must be requested), and I like the little arrangements where you can fill out your ballot at home and drop it off at town hall or a senior center or what-have-you.

There will come a day when we vote by INTERNET, but that's a ways away.

I don't like caucuses because they disenfranchise the most active and reliable voters, the elderly, who often can't stand, can't drive, can't see at night, need to go wee wee a lot, and have aches and pains that make a long process like a caucus too taxing. They also disenfranchise shift workers, parents who can't get/afford daycare, one-car families, and people without cars or the means to afford taxi or bus fare. The people most in need of representation often can't get to the venue.

I realize that the caucuses are Iowa's bread and butter--they bring in MILLIONS in the year running up to them, and they are a cornerstone of the economy that reverberates throughout the state and provides a measurable boost to the economy --just as the bullshit "First in The Nation" designator brings in big money to NH, but neither contest really reflects AMERICA anymore. Both states lack diversity and don't bring urban concerns to the fore--they were an old sop to the farmers that, given the nature of agribusiness today, is a throwback to a bygone era.

Parties have the right to select their own standard bearers. Closed primaries ensure that this happens. Now, if a party no longer reflects the views of most of the people, that party will DIE. See: Whigs, The for a brief history of this sort of thing (LOL)! And if a party dies, then So Be It.

This bullying and threatening that we "have to" let people in who don't reflect our shared, big tent/consensus values is utter bullshit, IMO. We don't "have to" do anything of the sort. You want to change the party? JOIN IT. Don't hijack it. And if it dies? Let It Be. That's nature for ya.

But trying to change us at the --dare I say--point of a gun? I don't support that kind of aggressive approach at all, and the more people try to bully us into it, the more I feel that a Dig In Your Heels approach is warranted. Acting like mischief making doesn't exist, and we're being mean if we don't let everyone in the door is nonsensical.

Everyone is welcome, but COMMIT first. Put your name and reputation on the dotted line. And do it well ahead of the elections.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That sort of rhetoric filters through my memories of this Party before LGBT forced the Party's

hand and managed to get them to allow our inclusion in the Party. It took bribes, threats and huge organization to get that. So acting as if the guardians of the status quo are inherently righteous and those seeking change need to scrape and bow is simply not related to reality.
If you don't want our votes we can leave. That's what we said to Bill in 92. He did the right thing, Consider his actions as wisdom and act accordingly.

[MADem]

19. Huh?

I think you're talking apples and oranges. "Allow our inclusion?" Excuse me?

The LGBT push came from WITHIN the party--not from without. The people complaining about the lack of a cohesive strategy to address inequality were REGISTERED DEMOCRATS--not outsiders who couldn't be bothered to register, couldn't be bothered to donate, couldn't be bothered to work off-year or downticket, and couldn't be bothered to represent in any regard. They were INSIDE the tent, had been for years, and they were (rightfully and righteously) annoyed that their voices were not being heard--they tired of the "Just wait, you're next" approach. They didn't coalesce around a candidate and decide they wanted "in," they were already IN.

They were loyal Dems, had been for years, had been very supportive, and they wanted their concerns recognized--and they were right. But they weren't standing outside the gate--they were inside, and part of the action.

Your argument is simply not supported. Sorry.

And all that "status quo" and "establishment" nonsense? It would be more believable if it wasn't coming from a 74 year old man who has been enriching himself on "status quo/establishment" politics over four decades, now. That "establishment" was just fine when it was giving him a place at their primary table, when it was giving him committee assignments and chairmanships, and when he was declining to serve in administrative positions within the party and no one held his feet the fire.

The window is closing on Sanders' ability to pivot believably. He'll either join the team, or he'll be relegated to obscurity. It's his call.

[Peacetrain]

16. I absolutely understand.. and just because I find it convenient ..

does not make it right ..because it does limit the number of Democrats who can actually participator.

My vision.. is a primary.. with optional caucus for any interested Democrat who want to join and participle in party building on the same night..

Kind of a hybrid..

But if we have to keep caucus.. I will do my damnedest to move it to a straw poll.. so people are not intimidated into voting by group dynamics.. I know what you are talking about.. I walked out of caucus this year.. did not participate just because of that

[MADem]

21. A hybrid would work, I think.

It would keep the "character" (and the revenue) of the event, and eliminate disenfranchisement and bullying.

[TCJ70]

11. I'd rather have national open primaries, both parties, same day...

...that way you have to vote for who you want. It should happen in May after all the debates and national introductions happen.

[jalan48]

18. Closed primaries will encourage a third party candidates like Nader.

Either the Democrats reconcile their differences or a new candidate will run who better reflects the political leanings of the progressives and independents.

[MADem]

20. Well, if that were true (and I have seen no evidence of that at all),

where are all these third parties that should have been popping up in closed primary states?

Third parties aren't even making the threshold to be included in general election debates, so I think that encouragement is weak at best.

[jalan48]

22. Think Bernie and this election. Next time around closed primaries will scream for an independent.

The Republicans are Worse argument is wearing thin.

[MADem]

24. HUH? Independent parties CAN (and do) field nominees.

This has been happening for DECADES, now. It's not news.

This has nothing to do with "Republicans are worse." People who want to run under a Democratic Party banner should be--dare I say--DEMOCRATS. If this election has demonstrated anything at all, it has demonstrated that.

And no threat (or promise) of an INDEPENDENT candidate is a scary thing. If that's the nature of the process, let 'er rip. And if the candidate gets traction like an H. Ross Perot (founder of the Reform Party), then that's small d democracy in action. Bring it on!

Those other parties will just have to get off their asses and do the work to raise their profiles and get their candidates on the primary ballots, IF they cough up more than one. And if they do? GREAT! The more the merrier. No one is stopping independents from organizing and doing the hard work (and it IS hard work--try standing in front of a supermarket gathering signatures from irritated people to get your candidate on a ballot) to put a choice between their candidates before the general public.

Jill Stein has this idea that the Green Party is her private preserve--and no one bothers to challenge her, so she's pretty much right on target there. If the damn Greens, who are better known than many, can't be bothered to have a real challenger within their own ranks, but instead put up that wealthy Lexington dilettante year in and year out, it's kind of hard to take this whole "independent movement" very seriously.

But go on--PROVE me wrong! That could change and if it does, great! I'd be delighted to see more parties, more conventions--if people will get off their best intentions and make it happen. Everyone wants "someone else" to do the grunt work, though.

I am dead serious, here--there's nothing wrong with MORE in this regard, in terms of parties or candidates, but don't expect to cadge off the work of DEMOCRATS to advance causes and candidates that don't reflect the core vision of our party. Throw your own doggone jamboree, and see if anyone shows up. People have been doing this for awhile, ya know:


http://www.gp.org/ (Greens)

http://reformparty.org/ Reform Party (they call themselves centrists--that's debatable)

http://socialistparty-usa.net/ Socialists (one of a few)

http://www.independentamericanparty.org/ (Far right Independents)

http://www.unitedindependent.org/ (Reform minded Independents)

http://newindependentparty.com/ (New Independents-a PAC disguised as a party)

http://www.lp.org/ Libertarian Party (aka Republicans who want to smoke weed)

http://www.constitutionparty.com/ Constitution Party (Conservative charmers)

http://www.cpusa.org/ Communist Party

That's just the tip of the iceberg--there are many more where those came from.

It's not like we don't have a shortage of third parties--what we have is a shortage of people who want to spend the time and money to GROW those parties.

[jalan48]

30. Sounds like we're on the same page.

But no whining a la, "Nader cost Gore the election!!!".

[MADem]

32. Hanging chads, cheating officials, AND Ralph Nader created a perfect storm that

enabled the Supreme Court to steal victory from Gore and hand it to Bush.

Bush was selected, not elected. But that's life.

[Uncle Joe]

23. I don't have a problem if a state prefers a caucus or primary but it should

be open and a holiday.

Each state could have a holiday for its own caucus or primary.

As a side note any computer tabulated votes should require a paper trail.

The federal government could even help fund this if it wanted to, this would be a major investment in our democratic infrastructure.

Thanks for the thread, Peacetrain.

[oberliner]

43. Do you think people should have to declare their vote publicly?

Or do you think they ought to have their vote be secret?

[Uncle Joe]

44. I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, both methods have their pros and cons.

[oberliner]

45. What are the pros of not permitting people to vote in secret?

[Uncle Joe]

49. The pros; it engages the community to deliberate and debate their choices, in that sense it's no

different than the Congress committing their votes in public on the substantive issues of the day. I believe debate is good for society, when at its' best, this kind of deliberation raises awareness and overall community intelligence.

The cons; it requires more time and participation from the citizenry than primaries, although that's not necessarily the case as in the Arizona Primary when people had to wait up to five hours in order to vote in secret.

[oberliner]

52. That's the only con you can think of?

That it requires more time and participation from the citizenry than primaries?

No other con in requiring that someone make their vote public rather than private?

[Uncle Joe]

58. The pros and cons of secret ballots.

The pros and cons of secret ballots.

The pros; it allows more privacy and you're less likely to experience possible retribution because of the way you vote and it usually requires less time.

The cons; It increases the propaganda power of the corporate media conglomerate monopolies direct hold over the people and in too many cases is less transparent in determining the results along with being more difficult to track unless you vote on a non-hackable machine with a paper trail.

You can suffer retribution in secret primary voting just based on your demographics, the closing of polls which incur half a day wait times only to be told you can't vote because of some "irregularity."

Secret votes don't mean so much when the big guys have it down to a science as to how you will vote and if they have the motivation to disenfranchise you from that vote.

[oberliner]

60. So it seems you are advocating against the use of secret ballots in elections?

Your presentation on that side of the argument seems a lot more impassioned.

[Uncle Joe]

61. Secret ballots could be best under certain conditions.

1. All computers are non-hackable or verifiable with a paper trail.

2. The corporate media conglomerate monopolies are broken up so that the U.S. has a healthy functioning free press, not a mass five or six member conglomerate propaganda machine with inherent conflicts of interest against the best interests of the American People.

3. One way or another adequate funding by the federal government and/or the states needs to be enshrined to maintain a proper amount of polling stations in primaries and general elections.

While these suggestions may not directly relate to the issue of secret ballots versus caucuses, I also believe.

1. Every American should automatically be registered to vote when they turn 18.

2. Election days should be holidays.

3. All primaries should be open as all citizens tax dollars support them, closed primaries only breed entropy and create major disconnections between the political parties; and the people that they're supposed to represent.

[Lord Magus]

47. No, they don't. Lack of a secret ballot is completely illegitimate.

The secret ballot is fundamental to democracy, because it prevents voters from being punished for supporting who someone else considers to be the "wrong" candidate.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Outlawing the punishing of people BECAUSE of the way they vote is fundamental to democracy just as

any civil rights violation would be.

[Lord Magus]

51. It's very difficult to enforce such a restriction, though.

A secret ballot makes it a non-issue because there's no way to actually know how an individual person voted.

[Uncle Joe]

54. The pros and cons of secret ballots.

The pros; it allows more privacy and you're less likely to experience possible retribution because of the way you vote and it usually requires less time.

The cons; It increases the propaganda power of the corporate media conglomerate monopolies direct hold over the people and in too many cases is less transparent in determining the results along with being more difficult to track unless you vote on a non-hackable machine with a paper trail.

You can suffer retribution in secret primary voting just based on your demographics, the closing of polls which incur half a day wait times only to be told you can't vote because of some "irregularity."

Secret votes don't mean so much when the big guys have it down to a science as to how you will vote and if they have the motivation to disenfranchise you from that vote.

Whether it's difficult or not to enforce such a restriction, for a well functioning democracy it's an absolute must to have one.

[Lord Magus]

55. It's also an absolute must to have a secret ballot in a well functioning democracy.

Your "cons" to secret ballots are nonsense.

[Uncle Joe]

56. Some times people can't connect the dots or see the patterns and so it seems

"nonsensical" to them.

[glennward]

25. I'm with you on this. nt

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

31. My choice is rock-paper-scissors

Or rock-paper-scissors- lizard-Spock if you want to make it more interesting.

[jillan]

33. Then people should be able to register OR change their registration at the polls so everyone can

participate.

[lunamagica]

34. Absolutely! No more Caucasus or open primaries

[loyalsister]

35. "not fair to limit who can participate"?

The form of open primaries used in MO is very inclusive. The voter asks for a party ballot and votes for that party's primaries. That way, they don't have to be part of a club to vote their choice and more independents can express a preference and be part of the process. Whining about cross overs is just petty. To believe that voters are more interested in manipulating the other side's election at the expense of surrending their vote for their own party's candidate is ridiculous.

[rurallib]

36. fellow Iowan - not a fan of caucuses nor open primaries either

As far as caucuses go, they are just a variation Iowa created to skirt the "first in the nation" primary status of New Hampshire. But it is such a HUGE business in Iowa that keeping the caucuses going is the one thing that unites all political spectrums here. If we go to a primary then we become one of many and people like Steve King and Bob Vander Plaats that carry way oversized importance once again become the nobodies they truly are.

As for open primaries - well the primaries were originally meant for party faithful to pick their candidates. If a person feels so that voting for one or another candidate is so important, take a few moments to change party registration. If a person feels that it is so important to maintain an independent status, then that is a choice they can make.

[coyote]

41. Im against Electronic Voting machines

All voting should be completed by casting a paper ballot.

[AgingAmerican]

46. Get rid of anything the DNC cannot manipulate through cheating

Brilliant!

[MrMickeysMom]

53. Sure glad you wrote that last sentence...

... because what you don't like is the only fair way to run primary races.

Think of it... Primary elections are funded by tax payers. Independents are tax payers. Closed primaries exclude the Independents who help fund primaries.

You want fair elections? Have them opened to those who fund them and vote.

[99Forever]

57. It's really quite telling...

... that those who most loudly proclaim themselves to be "Democrats," are also the loudest screaming to stop actual democracy.

[zalinda]

59. Open primaries tell you who is most likely to win the GE

Independents make up 47% of the voting population and apparently neither party wants their input. The primaries should be run like instant runoff voting, with all candidates from any party participating. Hold the voting in 2 states a day, at the end of the month, pick the 6 top candidates to run in a GE. It is the only fair way to do it.

Hold any form of cheating as a felony and they serve jail time. The vote should once again be held as civic and moral duty, not to be messed with.

No more PACs or super PACs, all public financed with a certain amount of money for each candidate. Every one starts on an even playing field.

Z

[skylucy]

62. Very good job explaining why caucuses and open primaries are not fair or democratic.

Thank you for posting this.